Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-05-03

present Wnen ne SOLO q lOaQ IOr Do Genus. LaueTIy
Gid not interfere with the sale, but when he
started away to deliver the hay Lanerty gave
him
TICKET MARKED 30 CENTS.
When the hay was unloaded the purchaser said
that Mr.. Lafferty had told him.that he should pay
only Do cents. Lafferty told him afterward that
1T was mistake, but he, the witness lost the
money. The witness said that he did not think
that it was right for Mr.. La!erty to interfere In
sales and cause the farmers to lose money. He
SAID the purchasers went to Mr.. Laf1erty, and not
to the farmer, and they bought hay as Lafrerty
suggested The witness thought that the farmers
ought to combine and sell the hay themselves, al
though for farmers living at a great distance from
the city this plan would not prove as practicable
as for farmers living near the city. He said that
Under the present system the farmer could not sell
directly to the consumer, because they all went
first to Mr. Lafferty. The latter has control OF the
market, and consumers have an idea that they can
save money and get their hay cheaper by going to
Mr. Lafferty. Practically there were no sellers In
the Market Mr.. Lafferty being the only seller All
ferty, and he sold none himself The witness had
no fault to ind with the Weighing OF the hay.
Mr.. LAFFERTY's EXPLANATION.
When Mr.. Lafferty was asked what explanation
he had to make, he said that he had no recollec-
ton Of the circumstances mentioned, He said
sometimes he assumed responsibility when the
and when hay sold was returned as refused by the
purchaser he always tried to dispose OF 1t to an
other customer.
MADE UP THE DIFFERENCES HIMSELF.
The next witness. Henry West, said that year
ago he hauled hay for Mr.. George Talbert from
Prince George county, Md. Mr.. Talbert told him
not to sell 1t for less than s110. When he reached
the market he told Lafferty what Mr.. Talbert had
said, and after awhile Mr.. Lafferty gave him a
ticket for 81. He started out to deliver the hay,
but Mr.. Lafrerty called him back and told him to
take the hay to another place. He did so, and the
purchaser only paid him 30 cents. He objected to
this, but he had to take it, and the witness took
half pf az, IN N
up to MI. Talbert.
DOES NOT BUY BUT APPRABEs.
Mr.. William B. Weller said in addition to his
written statement presented at the last hearing,
that the trouble was that Larerty does not buy
the hay but only prices 1t. He tried to sell the hay
to Lafferty: Last year the prices in the market
were from 40 to 30 cents. The witness went out
side, sold his hay for 80 and sometimes % cents
The witness thought that II Lafferty would buy
the hay outright the farmers would have no OBJ
lection to him. But he does not do that. he only
prices IT. He gets so cents q load for pricing it.
praiser OF hay, he should be appointed by the city
Mr.. n. J. Wagner also made brief oral state
ment in the same line with his affdavit submitted
at the first meeting of the board.
THINKS THE PRESENT SYSTEM GOOD.
Mr.. j. Fl. Loughborough, OF Montgomery, said
that since Mr.. Laf1erty had been in the market he
had made quick sales and reached home early. He
thought that Lafferty had been help to him, and
1t was an advantage to him to pay the fifty cents
vantage of farmers to have this system. The
present low prices were due to an overstocked
market.
Mr.. HAwLEY's EXPERIENCE.
Mr.. James E. Hawley, Of Oxen Hill, Prince George
County, Nd, said that year ago he sold load
through Mr.. Lafferty, with the understanding
that he should get 80 cents for It, But when he
came TO settle with the purchaser the latter said
and 1lmArfv
get that day. The purchaser finally agreed to
give him 20 cents, but the witness had not brought
was the agent for the consumers and naturally
he favored low prices The present scale OF prices
while probably due In part to Q large supply, was
mainly due, the witness thought, to Mt. La1erty.
MR.. LAFFERTY AND THE LARGE CONSUMERS.
Mr.. A. h. Floeckher, -four and feed dealer, was
examined. He was questioned as to the collu-
sion between buyers and Mr.. Lafferty. Mr..
Floeckher said that he knew Of no such
thing. He had seen farmers for whom Mr.. LAT
Mir. Lafferty refuse Mr.. Floeckher said that
when he bought hay he went to the market,
inspected what there was there, told me- Lai.
Sometimes Mr.. Lafferty sent him hay I'VE or
ten cents more than the price he said he would
Is PAID o s Ia nsd only ony bon
Mr.. La1erty stated That to the car companies
only IS cents commission because they Would ID
take the surplus hay he would have on hand
and could not otherwise dispose OF. 1t was con-
ven1ence to him. The board then took recess
and resumed the hearing at half-past O'Clock.
Testing the Sunday Law.
WRIT OF HABEAs CORPUS GRANTED IN TIE CocH-
Ran CASE.
Judge Cox has granted writ Of habeas corpus in
the case OF Geo.W Cochran, convicted OF violating
the Sunday law, and it islmade returnable forth
with. 1t Is thought that the sunday cases will
come before Judge Montgomery on Saturday and
he VIII certify them to the General Term.
A Singular Suit.
To-day bill was filed by Caleb I. Sears against
Chas. C. Glover and others, comprising the firm
OF Riggs & Co. and Ruth !. Sears, for an injunc-
ton to restrain the bank from paying out and the
last named from receiving certain moneya
The complainant states that tho mo-
ture Of his business IL such that
ne ts unable 20 give the proper care to the de-
posting OF the money, and that he had his wife
10 make from time to time deposits and these now
aggregate several hundred dollars and stand to
her credit He further states that he now desires
ner 10 check out SIS to pay on their homestead,
Dut Sne refuses TO DO 90, and threatens TO draw
all tne amount out OF bank to-day, He. therefore,
asks writ OF Injunction, and the court directed